This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Deuse -

It appears to be a combination of environmental factors beyond the control of the individual, with a possible genetic link as well. While not "innate," it's not a conscious decision either. People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight.

I would stipulate for the time being that it might be in some cases beyond the control of the individual, but that is exactly my point why it shouldn't be promoted to children who are the most vulnerable.

It's more than a fetish. People like you always make the mistake of assuming that homosexuality is entirely about sex.

Actions speak louder than words. It is homosexuals that create the impression that homosexuality is about sex. If it isn't then what else is it about?

And by banning it, they force homosexuals into a shunned, second class group. It is the State saying "Your love is not as good as the love of other people."

It is the people (which is the state) that says that homosexuality is less important, and by definition second fiddle. I happen to agree with this standpoint. By all measures it is.

This implies that homosexuality is wrong or negative somehow, but you have yet to demonstrate how this knowledge might harm children. Or anyone else for that matter

See above post for starters...

And conservatives are bigoted bible thumpers

Really now? Funny, I'm a conservative yet I do not believe in God. How's that come about?

Again I have to iterate that there is no evidence that knowledge about the existence of homosexuals, or endorsement of homosexuality, harms children in any way.

The very action of being homosexual is harmful to the one being homosexual? Was that not clear?

In fact, studies show children of same-sex couples do exactly as well as children of straight couples in any reasonable way of measuring. That is to say, no better, and no worse.

How about the measure of how many of those kids grow up gay?

No, actually, I'm not going to just take this "point" of yours. Provide some evidence of this or retract it.

See above list for starters. Unless, of course you dispute those allegations? If so, I can provide evidence, but does it really matter? Wouldn't you simply argue the semantics, as most gay proponents always do? You would invariably question the veracity of the studies, and or proof, and we would be off in another direction, so shall we dispense with the formalities, and simply agree to disagree?

The upside is upholding the very American value of not having religious beliefs thrust upon us, and equal treatment of all people.

Ah the slippery slope..

Two people who love eachother should be able to express that love in the form of marriage like anybody else.

Why? Says who? What if society decides it doesn't want to recognize gay marriage as viable?

To say otherwise is to hold the belief that their love is not as real or as important as yours

In the context in which I frame this debate, it simply doesn't have equal standing.

About the point you implied that desegregation had negative, unintended consequences

Another debate perhaps, but in short, it can be argued that desegregation has had a negative effect on American black culture.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

I'll take this, Redress. Again... too easy to pass up.

Originally Posted by Hicup

Redress-

Is it now? If there was no heterosexuality, how could there be homosexuality? Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end. Sexual orientation is word-speak, designed primarily to promote importance in the meaning of homosexual behavior - relative to the design of human procreative function. In short, designed to give standing to that which is less important, and undesirable in terms of any reasonable measure of humanity.

You confuse procreation with sexual orientation. They are not the same. One does not have to be a sexual being in order to procreate. All one has to have is working parts. Sexual orientation is about attraction. Procreation is about the production of offspring. Again, you need to brush up on your definitions.

And as far as "design" goes, point me to the designer's website to confirm what each part is designed to do. Until that happens, design is nothing but speculation. Use is a completely different matter, which is what you are talking about.

Of course they do!

No they do not. They legalize it. Do you know what endorse means? It means to express approval of or to recommend. Please provide direct evidence where the government is expressing approval of or recommending the consumption of alchohol or tobacco. I know that I can show you evidence to the contrary.

I argue that kids aren't homosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate homosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You?

And since heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation, ]I argue that kids aren't heterosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate heterosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You? If you do, please provide the location of the genetic coding for heterosexuality.

I said that Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, and you say:

Are you kidding me? Lets see,

1. Higher incidence of HIV, and almost every other sexually transmitted disease in males.
2. Gay men have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting AIDS in their short lifetime.
3. Gay men have a life expectancy of 50.
4. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of suicide.
5. Both gay men and women have a disproportionate percentage level of drug abuse, and alcohol abuse.
6. Both gay men and women have a much higher level of domestic abuse.
7. 35% of children raised in gay households from birth identify as homosexual as adults, this compared to the national level of homosexuality at 4 - 6% correlates to the notion that homosexuality is "catchy".
8. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of psychological abnormalities as defined by the DSM.
9. Both gay men, and women have many more sexual partners, compared to their heterosexual counter-parts.

I can go on, but I feel you've gotten the point by now. So I ask again, why would you want to promote homosexuality?

All of your examples are examples of correlation, not causation, a logical fallacy. The issues you present are due to dangerous sexual behavior. Homosexuality does not cause this. So, the only point that you have made is that of a logical fallacy.

Hehe, well, let's correct you here. Marriage between a man, and a woman is the best environment to raise healthy children.

Incorrect. The best relationship in which to raise a child is in a stable two parent household REGARDLESS of the sexual orientation of the parents. I have a dozen studies that I have posted here many times that prove this. So, no, the evidence proves this assertion of yours wrong.

Marriage does promote stable homes, however not so much in the gay home. The average gay marriage (Taken from the 10 year study in the Netherlands) last 1.5 years, compared to the average heterosexual marriage lasting 22 years. No comparison, however it should be noted that in female gay marriages the statistic is higher, lasting 3.6 years.

Your information is not applicable. Do you know what the average length of a marriage in the US is? 7.5 years. There is no reason to believe that if GM is legalized that this would not apply to gays, too. Your information is based in the Netherlands. We are talking about the US.

CC wrote -

Awesome, I'm glad you're enthusiastic, it is good for debate.

Always about this issue.

Really? Wow, what an epiphany? Sorry was being sarcastic. Ok, show me one, just one study by a researcher that concludes this? Couldn't you simply substitute sexual orientation with, oh I dunno, say the word "behavior", and be equally correct? Sort of like, preferring milk to water, or steak to chicken? LOL

Show me one study that identifies the genetic structure of heterosexuality. Just one. As far as your request for links, I have them on my home computer. I'll post them later.

Oh, I assure you I have it correct.

And I assure you that you do not. The DSM-IV, the manual that identifies fetishes, proves you wrong.

You appear ill-equipped to debate me on this subject. You thought process is bewildering?

You appear to have no accurate knowledge on this topic. Your lack of understanding relates to this.

Perhaps, however, if only for the way in which the consequence of gay marriage would wrought the society were limited, then I wouldn't be at all in opposition. I'm pretty sure I made that clear? My opposition to homosexuality isn't so much about homosexuality, it is in the way homosexuality manifest itself in a society that worries me. Namely how it is brought about, and to whom. I want my kids to live a long and healthy life, some of it I cannot control, but the things I can, I will. Legislating homosexual marriage is something I have the ability to fight, and I am.

You have the right to fight against GM. Just as I will fight for it. I have the evidence on my side. All you have is morality and opinion. I'm right, but that doesn't mean I'll win... outside of this debate of course.

Ah, if only that were the case my good man.. if only it were.

Guess what? If morality IS taught in schools, and you do not like that morality, you can remove your kids. Just as I can.

Chewed up.. LOL Ok.. Sure.

Absolutely.

You did nothing of the sort. Your liberal mind is incapable of objectively realizing your position is inferior.

Of course I did. But your conservative mind is incapable of understanding the argument, much less that your position has no validity.

So what is the upside?

Positive rearing of children... as evidence shows. Relationship stablity... as evidence shows. Improved health of those who are married... as evidence shows. All of this impoves society. A healthy population where chidren are being reared in a postive way makes for a heathy society. See, I have evidence on my side. You have nothing.

I see.. Well then I hope you won't object to me responding to anyone else that might disagree with me?

Tim-

Ok, with me. I warn you that you will not fare any better; your positions will be shown to be just as invalid by others, but feel free.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

In households where children are raised with homosexual parents, studies show there is no difference in the percentage that are gay. Further, since it has already been demonstrated by me, by research... and by you above, that there is nothing worng with being gay, this is, ultimately, and irrelevant point.

See above list for starters. Unless, of course you dispute those allegations? If so, I can provide evidence, but does it really matter? Wouldn't you simply argue the semantics, as most gay proponents always do? You would invariably question the veracity of the studies, and or proof, and we would be off in another direction, so shall we dispense with the formalities, and simply agree to disagree?

Present your studies. I will demostrate that they are methodologically unsound. I've done it before, and I doubt you will present anything new.

This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.

Originally Posted by ernst barkmann

It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Hicup

Redress-

Is it now? If there was no heterosexuality, how could there be homosexuality? Sexuality, in humans, and all other species I know of, is for one single purpose; to procreate, and pass on one's DNA through the expression of genes. The fundamental goal of sex is to this end. Sexual orientation is word-speak, designed primarily to promote importance in the meaning of homosexual behavior - relative to the design of human procreative function. In short, designed to give standing to that which is less important, and undesirable in terms of any reasonable measure of humanity.

You are assuming some grand design. Otherwise, statements such as "one single purpose" do not work. Since you cannot prove that grand design, your point is moot.

Of course they do!

You are confusing regulate with promote.

I argue that kids aren't homosexual by design, or "born that way". In fact no study, not a single one proves it to be otherwise. So without evidence of said innate homosexuality, am I to conclude otherwise? Says who? You?

I have not claimed that homosexuality is innate. It is however most likely in place by the time kids hit puberty. High school kids are still kids, and can very well be gay.

Well I am new, so a little joke here and there is nothing to be offended by, I assure you. Feel free to lob the softballs in my direction anytime you choose. I have thicker skin than that.

I don't play those games...much.

I said that Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, and you say:

Are you kidding me? Lets see,

1. Higher incidence of HIV, and almost every other sexually transmitted disease in males.
2. Gay men have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting AIDS in their short lifetime.

Actually, it's a higher incidence for those who have promiscuous sex and anal sex. Orientation is irrelevant.

3. Gay men have a life expectancy of 50.

Part of that is due to the explosion of HIV early on before we knew and understood the disease. Those where scary times.

4. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of suicide.
5. Both gay men and women have a disproportionate percentage level of drug abuse, and alcohol abuse.

Based largely upon the extra societal pressure of being gay in a primarily strait society. The **** that gay people went through in the 70's and 80's, and to a lesser extent still, is unreal.

6. Both gay men and women have a much higher level of domestic abuse.

Source please. I need more information to formulate a rebuttal.

7. 35% of children raised in gay households from birth identify as homosexual as adults, this compared to the national level of homosexuality at 4 - 6% correlates to the notion that homosexuality is "catchy".

Again, source please.

8. Both gay men, and women have a much higher incidence of psychological abnormalities as defined by the DSM.

I need to see your data again. I am pretty sure this has been proven wrong, but I need more details to look it up properly. Google is just giving me NARTH pages on this, and NARTH is a joke.

9. Both gay men, and women have many more sexual partners, compared to their heterosexual counter-parts.

Maybe because they do not have the stabilizing influence of marriage?

I can go on, but I feel you've gotten the point by now. So I ask again, why would you want to promote homosexuality?

I do not promote homosexuality, I simply accept it.

Hehe, well, let's correct you here. Marriage between a man, and a woman is the best environment to raise healthy children. Marriage does promote stable homes, however not so much in the gay home. The average gay marriage (Taken from the 10 year study in the Netherlands) last 1.5 years, compared to the average heterosexual marriage lasting 22 years. No comparison, however it should be noted that in female gay marriages the statistic is higher, lasting 3.6 years.

Dr. Xiridou and her colleagues based their research article on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infection and AIDS among homosexually active men.6 These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:

* Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.
* April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.
* Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.
* Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all HIV-negative men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.
* Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.

Holy hell, we have a huge problem...

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

When I return I'll post links, and or studies. No doubt you'll post links and studies to back up your position. This much I expected and why i wanted to avoid it altogether, but you both seem to distrust my level of experience on this issue, so it must be done. CC claims he can point out the methodological imperfections of any of "those" studies, well, in part he's correct, any student of research science can do this, as the inherant nature of human studies is flawed to begin with. So no big surprise. In the end we will go back and forth, all claiming to be on the right side, and nothing will be accomplished. I wanted to avoid this level of committment as I haven't explored this site fully yet, and although it may be hard to believe, I have other political interests.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s), and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some. It is this some that totals to be about 4 - 6% of the human population. The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad. I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Hicup

Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

When I return I'll post links, and or studies. No doubt you'll post links and studies to back up your position. This much I expected and why i wanted to avoid it altogether, but you both seem to distrust my level of experience on this issue, so it must be done. CC claims he can point out the methodological imperfections of any of "those" studies, well, in part he's correct, any student of research science can do this, as the inherant nature of human studies is flawed to begin with. So no big surprise. In the end we will go back and forth, all claiming to be on the right side, and nothing will be accomplished. I wanted to avoid this level of committment as I haven't explored this site fully yet, and although it may be hard to believe, I have other political interests.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s), and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some. It is this some that totals to be about 4 - 6% of the human population. The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad. I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Tim-

You may have plenty of experience, but you can make mistakes like with the Netherlands study. Take your time, All Star game is on.

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Hicup

Ok guys.. I see where this is going. I'll be back in a bit, I'm going to the store to grab a six pack, I have a feeling that this might take some time. Again for those on the sidelines please be careful when reading Redress, and especially CC's posts and retorts to my points. He's parsing words, setting up starwmen, and redefining things. Not that I had to point it out, but some might need a little coaching on how to spot how a liberal argues.

The partisan thing really isn't going to fly well. I'm by no means a liberal, but CC is 100% correct.

In the end the only thing that matters is this. My whole arguement towards gays, and or gay marriage revolves around one basic premise. That premise is that homosexuality is not in-born, had very little if anything to do with gene(s),

The same can be said for heterosexuality. So that kind of voids the whole premise.

and is something that, although not influential enough to affect every unsuspecting mind, enough that it can influence some.

Was your sexual orientation "influenced"? By whom?

The other basic tenent is that of morality. There are two kinds, the first is individual morality, which is deep, and very personal, the other is the collective morality. The collective morality can loosely be defined as the State, or society. In democratic societies it is this collective morality that by definition cannot be wrong, it is always correct, for good, or for bad.

Holy ****. What? First off, morality should never be legislated, and secondly, laws are NOT always right or correct. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

I argue that as a state we have the responsibility to our own posterity. Our posterity is dependant on the family, and the states version of the most ideal family is that of a man and a woman, period!

No, YOUR version of the "ideal family" is that of a man and a woman.

Some here will agree with that sattement, some will not. I can live with either one. It is my right to form that opinion, and I have, with very careful thought.

Of course you have the right to form your own opinion. You have every right to feel it's "correct" and "right" to legislate gender discrimination, just as they used to in the past with voting, property ownership, etc. And we have every right to tell you that you can take your gender discrimination and stick it where the sun don't shine.